Foundationalism question

[GrowingSmaller]

I want to ask a question about epistemological foundationalism, the doctrine that there are "basic beliefs" which are the foundation of our knowledge of the world, not being justified by appeal to other beliefs.

Descartes was a rationalist and held "cogito ergo sum" to be basic, wheras an empiricist might hold that sensory experience of the outside world is basic.

My question is what are the differences and similarities between the question as posed by a philsosopher and by a developmental psychologist? I am imagining that at a certain time a fetus develops simple beliefs which are in some way the foundation of it's thinking and knowledge of the world. Also, would an enquiry along these lines be "naturalised epistemology"?

All are welcome to share ideas, of course.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That is an awesome question!

I do remember, at the age of maybe 3 or 4, when I "tested" certain foundational metaphysical axioms. Examples:

I closed my eyes and attempted to slide my hand through the wall I couldn't see, thus testing if reality was fundamentally subjective or objective. (Conclusion: objective reality. The wall stubbornly refused to let my hand pass through it.)

I also tested feats of skill, for example by stacking toy cars, to see if reality acted according to my intent ("supernatural" powers), or if my physical actions could produce unintended results (natural powers). (Conclusion: natural powers. My hand acted according to my intent, but not other things. Natural causation was key to making things happen.)

Of course, I didn't know enough about philosophy to know that I was doing philosophy, and I didn't know any of those terms.

And to be able to test such things, I had to have formed the concepts already. I don't recall when those ideas may have occurred to me, or even if I had an innate sense of their truth that was a limitation or consequence of my natural mental function.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I want to ask a question about epistemological foundationalism, the doctrine that there are "basic beliefs" which are the foundation of our knowledge of the world, not being justified by appeal to other beliefs.

Descartes was a rationalist and held "cogito ergo sum" to be basic, wheras an empiricist might hold that sensory experience of the outside world is basic.

My question is what are the differences and similarities between the question as posed by a philsosopher and by a developmental psychologist? I am imagining that at a certain time a fetus develops simple beliefs which are in some way the foundation of it's thinking and knowledge of the world. Also, would an enquiry along these lines be "naturalised epistemology"?

All are welcome to share ideas, of course.

One must be careful not to confuse the 'process' with the 'product'.

 

[bricklayer]

It seems that we may either come to know without learning or learn without knowing it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It seems that we may either come to know without learning or learn without knowing it.

I see how one can learn without reflectively knowing one has learnt (a fetus would be a good example), but I don't see how one can come to know something without learning that thing unless you mean byt learn "take on as an enduing item of knowledge or skill".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

One must be careful not to confuse the 'process' with the 'product'.

True, the method of justification is for example not itself the fact that something is justified, although it is necessary for that fact of being justified that such a process has been followed.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That is an awesome question!

ty!!!

I do remember, at the age of maybe 3 or 4, when I "tested" certain foundational metaphysical axioms. Examples:

I closed my eyes and attempted to slide my hand through the wall I couldn't see, thus testing if reality was fundamentally subjective or objective. (Conclusion: objective reality. The wall stubbornly refused to let my hand pass through it.)

I also tested feats of skill, for example by stacking toy cars, to see if reality acted according to my intent ("supernatural" powers), or if my physical actions could produce unintended results (natural powers). (Conclusion: natural powers. My hand acted according to my intent, but not other things. Natural causation was key to making things happen.)

Of course, I didn't know enough about philosophy to know that I was doing philosophy, and I didn't know any of those terms.

And to be able to test such things, I had to have formed the concepts already. I don't recall when those ideas may have occurred to me, or even if I had an innate sense of their truth that was a limitation or consequence of my natural mental function.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think that mist children are born naive realists, althoughdon't know if that is falsified by your comments. They certainly seem more authentic to me than certain tales form Tibet about infants being born enlightened Buddhas!

 

[Eudaimonist]

ty!!!I think that mist children are born naive realists, althoughdon't know if that is falsified by your comments.

No, I didn't falsify naive realism at that time. You are probably right that I was one.

They certainly seem more authentic to me than certain tales form Tibet about infants being born enlightened Buddhas!

Hey, I was born a super-enlightened naive realist from previous incarnations in the naive realism universe!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

I was refering to"instinct".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I was refering to"instinct".

Ah that!
Whsts your opinion of a fetus' first experiences, are they in any way epistemically foundaitonal?

 

[bricklayer]

God works all things together for the good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose,
but not not so much for the rest of them.

Those prebirth months would fall into the all things catagory.

 

[Received]

Since Piaget developmental psychologists have been working to uncover how basic beliefs develop early in life, thereby implying the evolutionary basis to philosophical issues such as the one presented in the OP. In other words, "basic beliefs" aren't basic in the sense of being innate in that they're present from birth, but they're innate in the sense that they're somehow entangled in our genes. That, of course, jacks up our concept of "innateness", because we're speaking of capacities that aren't determined through the environment (nurture), but aren't innate since birth.

A far more slippery question would be: if these "basic beliefs" are developed throughout early life (and therefore aren't innately present at birth) and are a product of evolution, and evolution confers advantages not with regard to truth value but rather to survival value, how do we determine the legitimacy of these beliefs, or belief (and truth value) in general? In other words, because truth value is an evolutionary product (or byproduct), how does this affect our conception of truth?